Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Even with readOnlyHint: true in annotations, the description significantly enriches transparency: it discloses auth behavior (no auth needed, token doesn't narrow), visibility filtering (listed vs omitted forms), and explicitly states listings never contain answers. It explains the rationale for hiding omission, which goes well beyond the annotation contract.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is longer than average but front-loads the core purpose. Each sentence adds information: the purpose, the START HERE directive, the visibility exclusions, the no-answer guarantee, and the return shape. The only slightly verbose part is the 'program nobody outside can discover' rationale, which is still relevant enough to keep.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully specifies expected return fields (ok, count, forms, and each form's fields) and behavior nuance (what is omitted, what can_submit means). An agent can successfully invoke this tool with no outside knowledge and interpret the result correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds the 'Args: none' line, which is redundant but helpful confirmation. No parameter semantics are lacking.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('list'), resource ('every form Immersive Commons is currently taking answers to'), and the key scope: filtered by who you are. It also differentiates from siblings by explicitly saying 'START HERE — do not guess a form id,' which signals that this is the entry point for form-related tools and disambiguates from ic_forms_get/submit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear when-to-use context: 'START HERE — do not guess a form id' tells an agent to call this before any form-specific tool. It also explains when a token matters and when it doesn't. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools or provide exclusions (e.g., 'for a single form use ic_forms_get'), so it falls short of a perfect 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.